Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic relevance of biological subtype overrides that of TNM staging in breast cancer: discordance between stage and biology

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Tumor Biology

Abstract

Recently, we faced difficult treatment decisions regarding appropriate adjuvant systemic treatment, especially for patients who show discordance between stage and tumor biology. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic relevance of the TNM staging system with that of intrinsic subtype in breast cancer. We retrospectively identified women patients who received curative surgery for stage I–III breast cancer with available data on immunohistochemistry profiles including hormone receptor (HR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and Ki 67 staining at the Samsung Medical Center from January 2004 to September 2008. Primary outcomes were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). A total of 1145 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer and received curative surgery. Of these, 463 (40.4 %) patients were stage I, and 682 (59.6 %) were stage II or III. In addition, 701 (61.2 %) patients were HR positive, 239 (20.9 %) were HER2 positive, and 205 (20.9 %) had triple-negative breast cancer. The 5-year RFS for the patients who were HR positive and HER2 negative with a low Ki 67 staining score (0–25 %) was 99 %. The 5-year RFS for patients who were HER2-positive or had triple-negative breast cancer were 89 and 83 %, respectively (P value = <0.001). In multivariate analysis, advanced stage (II/III) and unfavorable biology (HER2 positive or triple negative) retained their statistical significance as predictors of decreased RFS and OS. Patients with advanced-stage disease (II or III) but favorable tumor biology (HR positive and HER2 negative and low Ki 67) had better clinical outcomes than those with stage I disease and unfavorable tumor biology in terms of RFS (99 versus 92 %, P value = 0.011) and OS (99 versus 96 %, P value = 0.03) at 5 years. The current results showed that intrinsic subtype has a greater prognostic impact in predicting clinical outcomes in subpopulations of patients with stage I–III breast cancer who show discordance between stage and biologic subtypes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hormone dependence and breast cancer. Lancet, 1959. 1(7083): p. 1133–4.

  2. Sun Y et al. Luminal breast cancer classification according to proliferative indices: clinicopathological characteristics and short-term survival analysis. Med Oncol. 2014;31(7):55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Slamon DJ. Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast cancer. Cancer Investig. 1990;8(2):253.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Buzdar AU et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3676–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dent R et al. Pattern of metastatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):423–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi J, Jung WH, Koo JS. Clinicopathologic features of molecular subtypes of triple negative breast cancer based on immunohistochemical markers. Histol Histopathol. 2012;27(11):1481–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi YL et al. Triple-negative, basal-like, and quintuple-negative breast cancers: better prediction model for survival. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Torrisi R et al. Potential impact of the 70-gene signature in the choice of adjuvant systemic treatment for ER positive, HER2 negative tumors: a single institution experience. Breast. 2013;22(4):419–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Paik S et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Allred DC et al. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998;11(2):155–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(3):235–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park YH et al. Small node-negative (T1b-cN0) invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancers: is there a subpopulation that might have benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):247–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Curigliano G et al. Clinical relevance of HER2 overexpression/amplification in patients with small tumor size and node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(34):5693–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Livi L et al. Prognostic value of positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and negative hormone status in patients with T1a/T1b, lymph node-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(13):3236–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park YH et al. Clinical relevance of TNM staging system according to breast cancer subtypes. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1554–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rhee J et al. The clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic significance of triple-negativity in node-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:307.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Paik S et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):3726–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cardoso F et al. The MINDACT trial: the first prospective clinical validation of a genomic tool. Mol Oncol. 2007;1(3):246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jankowitz RC, McGuire KP, Davidson NE. Optimal systemic therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22 Suppl 2:S165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sparano JA. TAILORx: trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx). Clin Breast Cancer. 2006;7(4):347–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Albain KS et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9707):2055–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Minicozzi P et al. High fasting blood glucose and obesity significantly and independently increase risk of breast cancer death in hormone receptor-positive disease. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(18):3881–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, School of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea

    Hyun Ae Jung, Yeon Hee Park, Moonjin Kim, Sungmin Kim, Won Jin Chang, Moon Ki Choi, Jung Yong Hong, Jin Seok Ahn & Young-Hyuck Im

  2. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, School of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea

    Seok Won Kim, Won Ho Kil, Jeong Eon Lee & Seok Jin Nam

Authors
  1. Hyun Ae Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yeon Hee Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moonjin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sungmin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Won Jin Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Moon Ki Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jung Yong Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Seok Won Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Won Ho Kil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jeong Eon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Seok Jin Nam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jin Seok Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Young-Hyuck Im
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Hyuck Im.

Additional information

Hyun Ae Jung and Yeon Hee Park contributed equally to this work.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Fig. S1

(DOC 216 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, H.A., Park, Y.H., Kim, M. et al. Prognostic relevance of biological subtype overrides that of TNM staging in breast cancer: discordance between stage and biology. Tumor Biol. 36, 1073–1079 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2730-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2730-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation